The Nation That Gave the World the Magna Carta Is Dead

The British Parliament on Monday debated whether or not to ban Donald Trump from the country for the crime of saying that in light of jihad terrorist attacks, there should be a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration into the U.S.

I did not expect for one moment that the Brits would ban the U.S. presidential candidate who may very well be the next President of the United States. A nation whose national self-esteem (or what's left of it) is rooted deeply in its place in history would be infamous for having banned the leader of its closest ally, the one that saved her from the Nazi onslaught.

On the other hand, maybe they will ban Trump. After all, the British government banned me from entering the country for standing up against jihad terror. To ban Trump for calling for a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration would just be more of the same. The British government, egged on by the left, seems determined to silence any and every voice against jihad terror and Islamization. The consequences for Britain will be catastrophic.

According to documents released in our lawsuit against the British government under the Duty of Candor, my support for Israel was also cited as grounds for the ban. An official in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office wrote that the dossier that the government had assembled as the case for banning me was "particularly citing pro-Israeli views." If supporting Israel can get you banned from Britain, opposing the unrestricted entry of Muslims (including jihad terrorists) into the U.S. certainly can.

In not allowing me into the country solely because of our true and accurate statements about Islam and support of Israel, the British government was behaving like a de facto Islamic state.

By the time my ban was officially announced, however, the Home Office had scrubbed the material about it being because I was pro-Israel. The British government explicitly stated that I was banned because my presence was "not conducive to the public good" and that I represented a "threat to security of our society." What were the criteria? CNN "journalist" Mona Eltahawy was soon afterward scheduled to speak in the UK at a women's conference sponsored by two sharia-compliant media orgs, Reuters and the New York Times. Yet Mona Eltahawy was arrested after attacking a complete stranger in the New York subway and defacing our American Freedom Defense Initiative pro-Israel ad. Is that acceptable behavior and conducive to the public good? The British government apparently thinks so. They also let a notorious Muslim Brotherhood leader take refuge in London, and readily admit preachers of jihad terror.

The Home Office also cited security concerns – that is, if I were admitted, Muslims might riot, and rather than keep the Muslims from rioting, they banned me. As Laura Rosen Cohen says, "security concerns" are the new "shut up." My real crime was my principled dedication to freedom. I am a human rights activist dedicated to freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and individual rights for all before the law. I fiercely oppose violence and the persecution and oppression of minorities under supremacist law. I deplore violence and work for the preservation of freedom of speech to avoid violent conflict. I have never been convicted of any crime. I have never been arrested. I became a writer and activist in the wake of 9/11. For this, I am banned from Britain. I shed no tears. I am banned from Mecca, too.

Things have not improved in the two and a half years since I was banned. Monday's Parliamentary "debate" was more like a clown contest, with Islamic apologists competing to see which one could out-bootlick Britain's Islamic supremacists.

Why did this once great country agree to hold such a debate in the first place? Now in the birthplace of the principle of the freedom of speech, holding opinions that are unpopular with the elites can get you banned from the country. Apparently over 500,000 people signed a petition demanding that Trump be banned. Mind you, another petition calling for a halt to the massive Muslim migration into the United Kingdom gained a similar number of signers, but there was no Parliamentary debate, or any significant political discussion, of that one.

Where also is the Parliamentary debate about the hundreds of thousands, possibly as many as a million, young British girls who were brutalized by Muslim rape gangs? These girls were sacrificed on the altar of Islamic supremacism. For years these little British girls went to the authorities about these Muslim child sex trafficking gangs and the authorities did nothing for fear of appearing "Islamophobic" or racist. But they sprang into action and banned me when they heard I would be laying a wreath at the site of the Lee Rigby beheading on Armed Services Day.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.